Cases: Arbitration

Fifth District Reversed An Order Withdrawing The Case From Arbitration Because Evidence Showed JAMS Invoice Not Received Until Later By Employer.                Construing CCP § 1281.98 through plain dictionary meanings, the Fifth District in Lopez v. Landscape Development, Inc., Case No. F085676 (5th Dist. Mar. 7, 2024) (unpublished) reversed an order withdrawing a case from […]

Dissent Believed That The FAA Preempted Section 1281.98.             In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. B327524 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2024) (published), by a 2-1 margin, the majority determined that employer forfeited the ability to arbitrate by not paying arbitration fees and expenses as required under CCP § 1281.98, even though JAMS

Facts Here Were That Employer Obtained Stay Of Court Case, But Did Not Timely Pay Arbitration Fees.             Although the procedural context was a little different because employer obtained an arbitration stay and then failed to timely pay fees for a contractual arbitration against employee, the 4/1 DCA followed the lead of Second District cases

Attorney Did Not Represent Client So As To Practicing In Unauthorized Fashion And Pre-Arbitration Fees Fell Within Broad Arbitration Clause.             Arbitration fee awards are hard to overturn, as 1600 Barberry Lane 8 v. Mikles, Case No. D081775 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 17, 2024) (unpublished) establishes that well, in line with prior posts under

Technical Discussions Across The Board, But Deadlines For Practitioners To Keep In Mind.             Folke v. Pulliam, Case No. BV033781 (L.A. Super. Ct. Oct. 6. 2023, posted for publication on Nov. 1, 2023) did consider the timeliness of serving a petition to vacate an arbitration award rendered under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act, Bus.

Broad Contractual Dispute Resolution Clauses Supported The Appellate Results.             As we have said many times in this category, arbitration awards—unless against public policy—are hard to overturn because the merits of the award are usually not subject to rescrutiny by trial or appellate courts.  Also, the emerging trend is that post-arbitration court proceedings fees are

Acquiescence Was A Key Predicate For Appeal Affirmance.             In Fidelity National Title Co. v. Mehta, Case No. B309988 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27, 2023) (unpublished), an arbitrator awarded about $440,000 in compensatory damages which were affirmed on appeal (even after reversal of a trial court deletion of consequential damages) and also awarded $167,315.94

Arbitrator’s Fee Clause Interpretation Was Immune From A Merits Challenge.             In Mikali v. Benyamini, Case No. B316525 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 16, 2023) (unpublished), an arbitrator interpreted a fees clause under a contractual agreement with an arbitration and fees clause, awarding certain defendants, respectively, $639,119 in fees and $32,647 in fees.  The trial